Provably Fair Can Cheat Players. Proof and code provided.

[ktinho]

@J-Dawgas you can see @dupeddonkalready pointed out the changes you have made that changed the context.

 

When you do things like this it undermines the effort of other members who want to get a clearer picture of how stakes system works. It will end up making people even more confused and it will not help their mental health.

If you find something you think maybe of relevance - then ask questions and start a discussion. Go into it with an open mind. Remember the majority on this forum gamble on stake casino too - we don't get our money back for not agreeing with you!

I don't have an issue with you. You seem to have a lot of zest and energy for this provably fair subject. Channel that energy and make better use of it.

 

❤️

 

 

2 hours ago, J-Dawg said:

Stake use the exact same method dupeddonk

Can you prove otherwise? No, because it's the same method.

 

 

If you are accusing me of plagiarism, I don't deny it. Doesn't take away from the information being shared. All I've done is present it and kept it relevant. Which it is, 100%.

Are you able to prove that they do use this method? Also admitting to something when you are caught red handed does not put you in a much better light.

What takes away from the information you have shared is the bit i have put into bold. You have changed it to what you think is relevant! 

It is like having a dispute with someone and they omit and change things that happened and then present it is a 100% factual. You spend 10 years in prison based upon this 'relevant' information - but it is fine because they say it is 100% true.so it must be and after all the person you had a dispute with was the judge and jury too.

 

Guilty until proven innocent?

[J-Dawg]

What's interesting, is that none of you take the information, consider it, then offer valid rebuttals with theories and info.

Instead, just blanket denial with generic responses. It's very telling of motive.

Anyone who didn't have a bias would not act like this. Fact is, no one has offered anything to counter the OP. The fact is, nothing is infallible. Where are the responses that take that into consideration? If you didn't have a bias you would offer theoretical arguments at the least.
Just like we know Bitcoin could theoretically broken, at very least you would offer how you think this "provably fair" could be broken.

So, we have no proof of how the provably fair games operate, yet you claim they are provably fair, yet there's no evidence to support this. Doesn't look good. 

[rubo03]

Understood 0

[maverick528]

1 hour ago, J-Dawg said:

So, we have no proof of how the provably fair games operate, yet you claim they are provably fair, yet there's no evidence to support this. Doesn't look good. 

I would like to have evidence that you can read , and also that you understand what you read.

All the "evidence" needed to understand the provably fair system that Stake uses is available in Stake website, and also on other 3rd party sites on the internet, even in wikipedia.

It is very clear you did not read what I wrote in this topic about not having to use "bet verifiers" to verify the bets here, and the details about provably fair.

It is easier to repeat that there is no evidence to support something, than to take time to read the evidences, learn and even make calculations that prove it.

The sad thing here is that some ppl that dont know what SHA is , or "exclusive-or", etc., try to hide their lack of knowledge with smoke and mirrors INSTEAD of trying to learn. 

 

 

[dupeddonk]

5 hours ago, J-Dawg said:

What's interesting, is that none of you take the information, consider it, then offer valid rebuttals with theories and info.

The vulnerability doesn't apply to Stake, or most provably fair Casinos today (but not all, there are still a few) because there is no 'pre shuffle' like bitZino had years ago.   This point has already been made.

 

 

==========

Recap for anyone just tuning in:

In the original post of this thread, @J-Dawgplagarized someone elses 6 year old post on another forum and deleted:

"Any shuffle-based provably fair casino that used bitZino as a reference implementation"

Then added:

"All provably fair casino games"

 

Later in the thread, referring to the bitZino method from 6 years ago, he claimed:

On 7/5/2022 at 4:24 PM, J-Dawg said:

Stake use the exact same method dupeddonk

Can you prove otherwise? No, because it's the same method.

This is also a lie.

He is trying desperately to convince other people that provably fair games are rigged.  Unfortunately he is unable to articulate valid arguments based in reality, so he has decided to tell blatant lies.  If anything, his posts should serve as a testament to the validity of the provably fair method used by many casinos today.

 

 

 

[ktinho]

8 hours ago, J-Dawg said:

What's interesting, is that none of you take the information, consider it, then offer valid rebuttals with theories and info.

Instead, just blanket denial with generic responses. It's very telling of motive.

Anyone who didn't have a bias would not act like this. Fact is, no one has offered anything to counter the OP. The fact is, nothing is infallible. Where are the responses that take that into consideration? If you didn't have a bias you would offer theoretical arguments at the least.
Just like we know Bitcoin could theoretically broken, at very least you would offer how you think this "provably fair" could be broken.

So, we have no proof of how the provably fair games operate, yet you claim they are provably fair, yet there's no evidence to support this. Doesn't look good. 

no bias. you can see that people here have digested and researched the article in question. upon doing so found the information is outdated and relates to a different system. What we have also discovered is that you have edited the article to suit a certain narrative and  to what you think is relevant. Which you have since admitted.

Your thinking is illogical. You want people to agree with your opinion based upon, not evidence/fact, creative editing of irrelevant articles.

Perhaps go away and put the effort in to evidence your thinking just like the people in the article you found - but based solely upon the system stake uses.

 

Imagine you ate at a restaurant and someone said "don't eat the soup. i have read an article that in a different restaurant in another location they were pissing in the soup" 

do you think that would be fair to assume if one place does it then all must do it?  or would it be fairer that without evidence to prove otherwise - the soup is fine?

 

 

 

[dupeddonk]

Throw back to when @J-Dawg didn't know Stake (like any provably fair casino) shared the code for how outcomes are determined, and when I showed it to him he tried to argue that because it's not on github it doesn't count.  ( link )

 

 

 

J-Dawg

All provably fair does is show you that your client seed + server seed = XXXXX

But the program (in this case plinko) could be programmed to drop 99% 0.2 and only drop 130x 0.000001 

etc etc etc 


So it's proves nothing, only that the result that they give you was genuine (as in, they did not change the result)

But if you are playing a game which isn't coded to math but to their own algorithm that has you losing 99.9999% of the time..........you get me.

 

Listen, provably fair means nothing, is the code open source? No. 

dupeddonk

Yes it is.

https://stake.com/provably-fair/game-events

https://stake.com/provably-fair/implementation

https://stake.com/provably-fair/calculation?game=plinko

 

J-Dawg

Where is the github Dupeddonk?!?! How is it open source? The checker means NOTHING without this

No one can prove that is the code that is being used. This is why Open Source = Github for the WHOLE world.

Except apparently Stake according to you. So the games are NOT open source. 

 

Quote

 

Where is the github Dupeddonk?!?! How is it open source? The checker means NOTHING without this

No one can prove that is the code that is being used. This is why Open Source = Github for the WHOLE world.

Except apparently Stake according to you. So the games are NOT open source. 

 

 

[dupeddonk]

8 minutes ago, Ghostnipple said:

Having considered this issue I have to conclude that I dont think stake would use such a method to cheat players.

Oh you must have missed it.  The method in OP is irrelevant, 

@J-Dawg plagarized someone elses 6 year old post on another forum and deleted:

"Any shuffle-based provably fair casino that used bitZino as a reference implementation"

Then added:

"All provably fair casino games" to make it seem like the method was relevant.  Basically, he lied.  

[dupeddonk]

16 minutes ago, Ghostnipple said:

The only thing I might say is that plagiarism is difficult to prove unless, the  alleged plagiarist claims authorship of someone else's work.

People can often neglect  to quote the source of material used in their writing, but have no real intention of passing the work of as their own.

Accidental plagiarism is still plagiarism.  But, maybe you missed it.  @J-Dawgnot only did he plagiarize, he also misrepresented the original authors claim.

He deleted:

"Any shuffle-based provably fair casino that used bitZino as a reference implementation"

Then added:

"All provably fair casino games" to make it seem like the method was relevant.  Basically, he lied.  

 

Just kidding, I know you didn't miss it.  You both have a similar relationship with the truth when it comes to topics like this one.  

 

[dupeddonk]

1 hour ago, Ghostnipple said:

Nothing wrong with conflict or disagreement. But if it becomes mean spirited, nobody benefits from that least of all the individuals slinging insults.

The only way to avoid insulting a narcissist is to agree with them.  

If you stop lying so much, you won't be insulted so much.

[ktinho]

let us be honest @Ghostnipple @dupeddonk if the OP had come here saying he had found something that he thinks might be relevant to  the discussion  with regards to provably fair. It would have been discussed on its merits. Changing the context of the article and then saying it is exactly the same method that stake use and dupeddonk can't prove otherwise - showed me that it wasn't going to be a discussion - The OP had already decided what  the narrative was to be. 

The OP didn't have to change anything if their only intention was to say there was once a provably fair system that was exploitable - could the same thing happen with stakes system?   

 

All the 'nerds' (for want of a better term) aren't paid by stake  not to look into their system. IF there were major issues it would be all over the internet because stake is the number 1 crypto casino in many peoples eyes. The fact it is licenced by curacao causes a lot of the mistrust -  curacao being famous through the last 20 years for dodgy casinos. 

 

 

[jungl3]

7 hours ago, ktinho said:

IF there were major issues it would be all over the internet because stake is the number 1 crypto casino in many peoples eyes.

Stake can't be cheating because they haven't been caught - a logical fallacy if ever there were one.

7 hours ago, ktinho said:

All the 'nerds' (for want of a better term) aren't paid by stake  not to look into their system.

And again.

Can I assume that you don't have a technical understanding of how game results are calculated and processed in stake's back end, if you suggest that 'nerds' would have to find things in stake's 'system'?

If that's the case, then given how much value you place on the way information is presented, perhaps you could tone it down when presenting faith-based arguments as fact, and avoid coming across as hypocritical?

[dupeddonk]

2 hours ago, jungl3 said:

Stake can't be cheating because they haven't been caught - a logical fallacy if ever there were one.

He said "if there were major issues". Like the ones op has a history of claiming. Stuff like "it's so obvious it's rigged, they can manipulate every outcome at will,  probably fair is a scam".

And he's right. If there were major issues with the probably fair method, it wouldn't be the rigtards that think the statistical analysis in their head while they were gambling should override independent software analysis leading the charge to expose this conspiracy. 

[Aser]

You can do 2x payout 

1.1increase lost and 1.1 increase win minimal possible bet and stop 1% of balance 

[SilentDeath37]

most of players just lose gambling is this provably fair or not? 

all casino are winning  more then the house edge.

 

gambling is just for fun u cant win overall 

 

[smdx]

win or loss you need luck

[kayttobr]

It's funny how these 3 or 4 Stake employees always answer one after another, as if they had multi-tab open with different accounts and it was only one person controlling them, because the way the responses are, and the way they write, doesn't seem very different if you remove punctuation in the text, and just read it as plain, literally "decipher" the text and you'll realize it's the same person, funny.

 

Now without derailing too much and actually commenting on what @J-Dawg wrote..

You know what, lol, fk it, I'll make it simple:

1: Stake itself is a scam, no integrity, no transparency, full of lies and deception.

To EVERYONE that reads this post, stay away from Stake Originals. DO not play them, not even a cent, do not give them extra revenue, basically strike on stake originals, and do your daily business in the chat or whatever you do.

I have videos, screenshots and actual proof of stake skipping bets, giving you different results, "visual-bugging" your results, and what not, I would post it but your thread will get locked/deleted in matter of an hour or two.

I'll say it how it is, these 3 musketeers; they'll always derail these convos, come up with weird excuses, flood your posts, and have other generic fake name forum accounts follow them up to back them up, in every post.

And it always starts with "I actually like.." "tbh to me he makes a lot of sense" "He knows what he is talking about"

In what world would bunch of 18+ y.o suck someones dick so much? In every single post?

Anyways, my two cents? If something is not right, then everything is wrong.

The foundation they build their house on, is poorly built, which makes the entirety of all of this poor.

The so called "provably-fair" games and the audacity to put their name, brand, whatever you wanna call it in their games and force it so hard to believe it's fair, already raises a flag.

If something real, you don't need to authenticate it.

- It's like going to the grocery store and buying a package of cheese, with big flashy red letters that says "100% REAL-CHEESE" then you know something is wrong.

I could go on and on with these Quotes to psychologically drill it in your head that Stake raises a lot of red flags, but, you do you, as of for me, I know it's a scam. Check trustpilots reviews, the fake bought reviews, and then the real ones by real players, check reddit, search up stake skipping bets, check youtube, search up stake originals scamming with fake results, you'll get plenty of information and videos.

 

Edit: Oh and btw, these morons that keeps jumping on these posts everytime "its gambling, maybe bad luck, try again :)" and all those "it's luck" = fake accounts, stake controlled accounts.

[kayttobr]

2 minutes ago, Ghostnipple said:

I enjoyed your post. I have to admit to writing a good trustpilot review, but in my defence it was when Eddie was running stake 3 years ago. A time when players were respectfully treated and stake had a good reputation.

That's very true, I enjoyed Stake back then as well. Stake had its good reputation, but now it's filled with tons of people saying it's scam, I wonder why.

People don't just randomly run outside and scream it's a fire.

If one goes does it, then yeah he's insane, but the patterns we see about people complaining? And always the same subject in different forms? Hmm, weird don't you think?

As of for me? I've Quit spending on Stake, also wouldn't be here on the Forums either but J-Dawg is a nice person and I got notified by being tagged by him so I thought I'd share my words here. But I'm done with Stake, withdrew all my money and yeah, I suggest you guys should be aware as well.

Be careful where you tread boys, it's a huge large gray area

[dupeddonk]

1 hour ago, Ghostnipple said:

When support staff pose as players in the forums, it undermines stake's reputation for fairness

Accusing me of being a stake employee, or being paid by stake post what I do, (I've denied these accusations many times) are great examples of ad hominem attacks.  

Even if you were telling the truth about me (you aren't), it wouldn't change any of my arguments. When an argument is based in logic and facts, the character of the person making it doesn't matter. Like the provably fair method itself, no trust is required to believe what I'm saying about it is true. Just logic, and the ability to understand basic concepts.

 

[dupeddonk]

35 minutes ago, kayttobr said:

And it always starts with "I actually like.." "tbh to me he makes a lot of sense" "He knows what he is talking about"

In what world would bunch of 18+ y.o suck someones dick so much? In every single post?

I think these kind of posts have something to do with the stupid 10 post minimum requirement to enter the forum giveaways each week. 

[skleven]

The only thing you have to ask yourself when it comes to "provably fair" games is: Why do only crypto casinos and other shady operators use it, and not the licensed and gov approved casinos? 

[jungl3]

1 hour ago, dupeddonk said:

He said "if there were major issues". Like the ones op has a history of claiming. Stuff like "it's so obvious it's rigged, they can manipulate every outcome at will,  probably fair is a scam".

Please could you directly quote OP saying that?

There's a distinction between x and the implementation of x. That was what OP was pointing out, I believe. In this case: the implementation of a provably fair algorithm within the context of placing a bet at an online casino. There is more that's involved, as a provably fair algorithm is a component in the system, not the entire system. A system that integrated a provably fair algorithm has been manipulated before at another crypto casino while still returning a verifiable result, as demonstrated in the opening post. Alone, the words "provably fair" do not indicate if an operation is run fairly or not.

Stake do not use the same implemention as that site did, for clarity.

2 hours ago, dupeddonk said:

And he's right. If there were major issues with the probably fair method, it wouldn't be the rigtards that think the statistical analysis in their head while they were gambling should override independent software analysis leading the charge to expose this conspiracy

If a particular provably fair algorithm was shown to be flawed or stake's games were very obviously and demonstrably rigged, yes, of course it would be spread across the internet and everybody would know to avoid playing here - the site wouldn't be as big as it is today. Breaking news: bears shit in the woods.

I'm not aware of stake going through any full 3rd party audits or independent analyses of their back end operations. Please could you provide links to the findings or provide more information on how they were carried out?

 

 

 

[dupeddonk]

26 minutes ago, skleven said:

The only thing you have to ask yourself when it comes to "provably fair" games is: Why do only crypto casinos and other shady operators use it, and not the licensed and gov approved casinos? 

That is a good question.

The probably fair method and most cryptos are built on the same basic concepts: use one way hash functions (SHA256 in most cases, including Bitcoin and stake) to create trustless transactions/wager outcomes. 

It was developed and iterated over within the crypto community and is still relatively young compared to online casinos in general. 

Without it, the crypto gambling community would look a lot different than it does today. 

Hopefully it's catches on and spreads to the rest of the gambling world, but it's takes a lot longer for an established industry to change it's ways than it does for a new technology to create it's own niche within one. Especially one involving as much bureaucracy as gambling regulators. 

 

Tldr; same reason most of the world still uses real money while Bitcoin exists. 

10 minutes ago, jungl3 said:

Please could you directly quote OP saying that?

Please, just search his post history yourself. 

[ktinho]

@jungl3I suggest that you read all of my forum posts for the interest of balance. I am considering the OPs claims and the information provided - I am able to base what i say about 'nerds' and their behaviour  due to the article the OP used in the first post. It is not unreasonable to think that having investigated  one provably fair system that other systems would be given the same treatment. Not necessarily by the same people.

As dupeddonk pointed out i am saying it would not be the people shouting rigged and scam at every opportunity - it would be people with the ability  to prove it.

I suggested the OP goes away and proves the claims. IF the systems being exploited then show the evidence - not evidence of another system that one has edited to seem relevant.

My technical expertise and mathematical ability is a moot point. I am not being given anything to examine.

 

IF someone proves their claims then it is in my interests as much as theirs. When all i seem to get is " you are a stake employee" i find it funny because all i am asking for is stone cold proof.

Very much the way i have seen @dupeddonkdisagree and correct actual stake employees it gets ignored because it doesn't fit the "you work for stake" narrative.

[Mikasa323]

idk anything of it,but i think picking mines three times a row on a one mine is not provably fair